0
Williams team principal James Vowles has shed light on why the team submitted a request to review the time penalty handed to Carlos Sainz at Zandvoort. Williams firmly disagrees with the stewards’ decision, arguing that the blame for the incident lies with Liam Lawson rather than Sainz.
Questioning the original ruling
Sainz Saw Everything Fall Into Place: “I Embrace It”
Sainz Proud of His Debut Season With Williams
Sainz was handed a ten-second time penalty following a clash with Lawson, but Vowles believes the decision was unjust. Speaking to Sky Sports F1, the Williams boss stressed the
importance of a review: "If you look at Lawson’s onboard – and not Carlos’ – you can see his head is completely in the mirrors," Vowles explained. "He’s not looking forward; he’s focused on the mirrors. And
as soon as the car moves, he ends up in the turbulent air of the Ferrari and loses control."
Vowles added that Sainz’s footage also reveals the suddenness of Lawson’s movement: "The car doesn’t move smoothly sideways because he’s opening the steering. It just shoots
a meter to the left, straight into Carlos. Normally, when you open the steering, the other car leaves space. But when there’s such a sudden movement that causes contact, that to me is a racing incident. It’s not as if Lawson intended to hit him."
The bigger picture
Vowles also pointed to Sainz’s strategic thinking at the time: "He was waiting for the right moment, with the intention of forcing Lawson out of position before switching back behind him. What matters most to me is that Carlos received two penalty points in addition to the time penalty. But more importantly, we need a clear conversation so we all understand how we’re supposed to race each other in the future."
The Williams chief concluded that the appeal was less about overturning the punishment and more about clarity for drivers and teams: "If this is to be defined as ‘how we race,’ then at least we all know where we stand."
Azerbaijan Grand Prix
C. Sainz jr
4 members have this team as their favourite
Replies (0)
Login to reply